Hi Dave, You are doing it. No matter what evidence is presented, people will find a way to say it doesn't exist. As I mentioned earlier, the argument was that didn't apply to chess except for the first 4 or 5 ply - then when that didn't happen they expanded it to the first 6 or 7 and to this very day people are denying it - although they are looking more and more foolish in the process.
We have already seen that this holds in GO, I did a massive study of it month ago on 9x9 boards and showed everyone this beautiful plot with straight lines showing the ELO per TIME curve which was essentially flat. I also remember the response. "ok, it applies to a small boards but 19x19 is a completely different game that bears no resemblance." So I must give up on this. I know if I do the plot again someone will say, "it only applies to depths we can currently test." "Surely it will flatten out next year when the new processors come." I cannot answer to those arguments when no evidence is presented to back it up other than superstition of disbelief or my favorite, "the testimony of experts in the field." I can only say that every bit of evidence we have backs up what I am saying. - Don Dave Dyer wrote: > I agree with your exposition of search as it applies to chess, but > I think there is a qualitative difference in Go. > > In chess, evaluators can see clear progress, in the form of material > balance and statically determined positional factors, so each additional > ply gives you more opportunity to see progress. > > Until Go evaluators give similarly strong and reliable signals, search > will be a very much weaker tool. > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
